Moot Death Penalty Debate

I call this a moot debate because Dudley Sharp himself is not here to support his position. I have taken his statements from the article linked below and attempted to refute them. Of course it would be preferable if Mr. Sharp himself were to see this and set up a debate on Stickam where we could meet face to face and discuss the matter. I would like to know why, when he was once a death penalty opponent, as I am now, did he change his mind, to become a prominent death penalty advocate. I have also advocated the death penalty in the past, so I'm not about to say that Sharp is some kind of monster. I would just like to know what changed his mind. If he will tell me the cause of his change, I will tell him the cause of mine.http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm



http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?pi=0&ps=20&sf=&sa=0&dm=0&...

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Death Penalty
• innocence
• fairness

[Largo64]

@IKillBabyKittensLOL In American courts the terminology is "not guilty." Why do you want to make an issue of a phrase that makes no substantive difference? In an American court of law, the defendant does not have to prove anything. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony's jury thought there was a reasonable doubt, so she went free, even though most of the jurors believed she she had killed her baby. The law now says she's innocent. But I don't have to.

[IKillBabyKittensLOL]

@Largo64 There is a difference. If I claimed to be innocent then I would need to provide proof but if I said I was not guilty then it's the other side who has the burden of proof. It's the same difference between 'believing there is no god' and 'lacking a belief in god'. One needs evidence, the other doesn't

[Largo64]

@ubermisogynist No anti-death penalty person "defends" murderers. We only say that killing is, to us at least, obviously the wrong way for the society to say killing is wrong. Defending killers would be trying to prevent them from going to prison. No sane person says that. For you to say we do is either terribly short-sighted on your part, or simply dishonest in defense of your position. I can agree to disagree with you, but I won't tolerate being called a defender of murderers. It's just false.

[ubermisogynist]

@Largo64 i realise no argument i make will change your mind, and the same goes for me. I just comment because I get angry when I see people defend murderers. Anti-Death people act like murder is an accident. You have to make an effort to murder someone. I read stories about that girl who was chopped up, they had a boy who was behaded by his father to get back at his ex-wife...sorry but people like that deserve to be tortured and killed. that is my view and nothing will change that

[Largo64]

@ubermisogynist Can you show a rise in vigilantism in countries like Canada, the UK and Australia related to abolition of the death penalty? I doubt it.

[Largo64]

@IKillBabyKittensLOL I'm not sure what you are saying here. "Innocent" or "not guilty" are just different terms for the same thing. A person who is found "not guilty" IS innocent, at least in the eyes of the jury. I understand in your country there is a verdict of "not proven." In the case of Casey Anthony, that would have been a lot better than "not guilty," since most of the jury felt that she had killed her baby, but that the actual evidence was insufficient.

[IKillBabyKittensLOL]

0:53

Gah. The point is that they haven't been found ''guilty' - not that they have been found 'innocent'. No one pleads or is found innocent.

[Largo64]

@ubermisogynist This is one of those situations where the word "some," or even "many" as a modifier would be appropriate. I am anti-death penalty, but also anti war. If we had spent half our war appropriations actually helping people in the countries we have bombed, and the other half caring for our own homeless, there would likely be less war because we would be less hated abroad. You are right. War IS murdering innocent people.

[Largo64]

@ubermisogynist I get the same visceral response to things like that that you do. It would be easy to just say kill 'em all. But it doesn't change the fact that taking revenge is a shallow response to an evil deed which changes the evil deed not at all. It may make us feel a kind of momentary satisfaction, like watching a movie and saying, "Yes!" when the bad guy is killed, but it doesn't make us better people. The bad guy in the movie is a caricature. The convict, however bad, is a human being.

[ubermisogynist]

@Largo64 but in certian instances it's warrented. Example they had a recent case where a babysiter bashed in the head of 9 nine year old girl and then dismemebered her with a hack saw. He kept the head and hands in the freezer. That man has to die, No if's and's or but's. I know you will say "it won't bring her back" well neither will putting him in jail.